Hi Abhi,

You may have tripped across a problem with the IDENTITY_VAL_LOCAL() function. When identity columns were re-worked to use sequence generators, concurrency tests were run which involved many writers, that is, many sessions which concurrently issued INSERT statements. I don't recall much testing done with competing sessions which issued IDENTITY_VAL_LOCAL() calls.

In the case when you have multiple concurrent writers, what is the meaning you expect from IDENTITY_VAL_LOCAL()? It is possible that the SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_PEEK_AT_IDENTITY() system function may give you a result you can work with. It is likely that SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_PEEK_AT_IDENTITY() will play better with the underlying sequence generator.

If you can script the problem, please open a bug report.

Hope this helps,
-Rick



On 5/18/17 2:20 AM, Abhirama wrote:
As you can see from my post, lock is denied because of "values identity_val_local()" issued by a competing insert on the same table. This is also asserted by the the fact that, in application, if I synchronise all the offending inserts(only inserts, not selects), I do not get a lock exception. I find it really hard to believe that derby locks out on a couple of concurrent inserts.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, John English <john.foreign@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2017 08:29, Abhirama wrote:
Hello,

I am facing 40XL1 error when I try to insert rows into a table with an
identity column. Identity column has been created using "id integer
generated by default as identity (START WITH 100, INCREMENT BY 1)". This
is also the primary key for the table. Start with 100 is used because I
use 1 to 99 range to insert deterministic values for test cases.

Usual reason is some other query has a lock on the table -- maybe you did a SELECT involving that table and forgot to close the ResultSet?
--
John English



--
Cheers,
Abhi
https://getkwery.com/